Are you “flashing back,” to your other screen name? You know, the one you were using in your “flashback,” thread?
Posts can take on a “new direction,” - but rekindling a closed topic thread will not be that direction. It’s interesting that you, especially, would want to dredge up old threads such as those. Or, any involving me - online.
As to your first sentence, you clearly have not read this thread from the beginning. Or, perhaps, from anywhere - aside from where you randomly jumped in, hoping (apparently) to get this thread shut down.
Perhaps the vagueness of the SS language was a result of the legislation-making process. Folks who didn’t want something like SS in the first place (we can police our own!) held out for lack of transparency/specificity/naming the act.
My guess is that if SS can be given some teeth that matter to ALL levels of organizations/participants under their watch (as was pointed out somewhere else, if you have no Olympic aspirations, perhaps you don’t care as much about not being sanctioned?) then we may see more of these issues resolved, and hopefully a more transparent process.
I do believe that the lack of information was also likely part of how some believed they would shield the alleged wrongdoers from shame, more than they were concerned about the victims visibility. Even if that perspective is not in the legislative history. Just MHO.
I actually tend to agree with the last half of the last sentence of your first paragraph. I believe, some statement from SS, clarifying that either “we did not have sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof required,” or, “the evidence on which we placed the decision for the ban, turned out be inaccurate, requiring SS to lift this sanction,” (or, something along the lines of what may have happened, in a general sense) would have been appreciated by many. To the best of my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong, no such statement was made.
As far as SS’s intentions, I will just say, I made the mistake of assuming certain actions DMD would have taken, had she not been under a confidentiality order. But, that’s not a fact & was, perhaps wrong to assume. It’s possible you’re right. Maybe, SS really didn’t want to send a strong message that RMD is “really a great guy.” It’s also equally plausible that, in doing just that, it would diminish the victim & his/her claim/s. This would open up a whole new can of worms for SS, too. In my opinion, erring on the side of caution is probably the best move, considering the delicate subject matter.
I, too, feel some explanation is “owed.” However, I also recognize that’s human nature to want more details on a subject though, we’re not really owed or entitled to knowing anything about matters which don’t directly concern us, personally.
I would not characterize SS has having “vague language”. I think the legislation setting up SS reflected a conscious decision that the investigations would be kept confidential, and only the outcome would be publicly revealed. I think it was a deliberate choice, and undertaken primarily to protect the privacy of the victims.
I’m “dying” of curiosity to know what happened to cause the reversal, but I can’t imagine what SS could say that would be informative, while protecting the privacy of all parties. As curious as I am, I don’t think I am “owed” an explanation.
You know, I do think the rest of the organization is actually “owed” an explanation. I mean, how can you do better if you don’t know what went wrong?
There’s ways and ways of getting information out without naming and blaming. It doesn’t have to be done right away, just on a regular basis: One reprimand was issued tp a member for ABC, one suspension was for OPQ, one suspension was over turned because after arbitration it was shown that XYZ.
I mean, SS has more than just the horsey set to manage, they could put out a semi annual report on their work, and we wouldn’t know if they were talking about a hunter trainer or a taekwondo trainer, right? But we’d know a little more about the process. We’d know what gets a person in trouble, and where our various organizations need to do some work.
I was assuming that the investigative team within SS does have the information as to why the ban was reversed. The issue is what can be disclosed outside SS.
We know what the SS code is, and SS announces the broad category of the violation when it bans someone, e.g. “sexual misconduct involving a minor”.
In the RG case, a group of his victims dropped their anonymity in order to show his ban was warranted. If people had been willing to trust the decision of SS, that should not have been necessary. But I still think SS itself has to abide by the confidentiality provision regardless of how curious everyone is.
Over time, there will be leaks that provide some of the information you want. But I think it is important that it not come officially from SS itself.
I agree, child porn is extremely harmful to the children who become victims of this.
I disagree, with the assumption that he deleted things, believing to be “successful,” but “didn’t and got caught.” That could have happened. But, there has been no evidence to show, indisputably, that’s the case. All speculation.
I may have missed something, though. Was there an article/post/statement which mentioned this ban was to do with “child pornography?” If so, could you please share it? Or, let me know where to find it? The only accusation I was aware of, was a vague charge indicating “sexual misconduct with a minor.” Then, the ban was lifted. (A whole other discussion.) If there is information from the original charge leading to the ban, which in any way indicated computer child porn, I’ve not read it. Did this happen? Or, just speculation?
Your remarks confuse me. Could you explain why /how “woot woot,” followed by your “hip hop hooray,” lines are helpful or contributory to the topic at hand?
So @alibi_18 is that a screen shot of a private message that you posted publicly?
People lament that the ignore feature for public posts doesn’t work, but the ability to block PMs from people still works, doesn’t it?
It’s undeniable that you come on threads like this one to take digs at her, given the threads originally dedicated to that activity have been shut down. Thanks so much [sarcasm] for taking us further down the path of getting this one shut down, too.
It’s undeniable that you come on threads like this one to take digs at her, given the threads originally dedicated to that activity have been shut down.
:o
Thanks! Excellent point!